S K BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged Annexures 2 and 3 show cause notices dated 16.2.94 and 17.3.94 respectively and the Annexure-6 termination order dated 5.4.94 terminating his service.

(2.) The facts, as stated by the petitioner, may be stated as follows: The petitioner was a teacher of repute and he served in various renowned Schools in the Country. He was appointed Principal of Assam Rifles Public School, Shillong in the year 1990. On 15.10.93 the students of the school resorted to strike for a day as the petitioner slapped two students for their misbehaviour. The 3rd respondent by Annexure-2 show cause notice dated 16.2.94 asked the petitioner to show cause by 21.2.94, to which the petitioner replied by his letter dated 21.2.94 within the period. An enquiry was conducted and the statement of the petitioner were recorded. No notice before conducting enquiry was issued. According to the petitioner, statements were recorded very casually. Thereafter, the petitioner was never called for hearing. Besides, findings of the enquiry was also not furnished to the petitioner. On 17.3.94 another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner framing same charges. On 22.3.94 the petitioner gave his reply to it. Thereafter, by Annexure-6 order dated 5th April, 1994 the 3rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the entire process adopted by the respondents in terminating the petitioner's services, was illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, no procedure as per settled law had been followed. Over and above, there was failure of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed only at the instance of the Chairman of the Governing Body and this was not a decision as a result of the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner stated that the order of termination was illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the respondent School, i.e. Assam Rifles Public School, Shillong, was not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Contitution. Mr. Choudhury also supported the order of termination. He submitted that the order of termination was passed after following the procedure prescribed and giving opportunity of hearing as per Annexures 2 and 4. Therefore, this Court even if it was held that the said school comes within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution, no interference was called for.